Julian LaVerdiere

His art work makes me think of a short story I read call “The Nine Billion Names of God” by Arthur C. Clarke. This story has probably one of the most chilling endings I have ever read, and it’s only like 5 pages longs, so read it. The Nine Billion Names of God. I can’t really put my finger on why I see these two things relating. Maybe it’s the stark realization that what we don’t believe will ever happen can occur without a logical reason. Like the twin towers and the stars blotting themselves out as God begins to wind things up. I don’t know what I’m getting at.

Matthew Barney

I have been a huge fan of M.B. ever since I saw The Cremaster Cycle (illegal bootleg). His works are intense as hell, and have harmonious and grotesque qualities working together at the same time. Time Magazine called him the most important artist of our generation. So I guess he’s pretty important? The thing I think I enjoy the most about watching his films is when the point comes where you stop examining them, analyzing them for structural and plot integrity or trying to understand the symbols and find juxtapositions between ideas, and you start to just take in the visual components and see them as just eye-candy. It’s a purely sexual experience. It’s hypnotic and sensual and you don’t have to probe his deep, well thought-out symbols or imagery.

Scott Greiger Q&A’s

1) What message does this work convey to me?

Scott’s work is about showing the viewer the ugly reality of consumerism hidden in the backgrounds of our society. I personally relish in the act of cutting the Socialist Throat, and enjoy watching people speak out against the injustices our nation usually enacts. While my work doesn’t necessarily focus on corporate or political belief structures, I respond to it well. I enjoy hunting and finding the fraud behind what people say and what they actually mean or convey. I even use to create and collect ‘puns’ because I think they are exciting and misleading and intelligible. I think this work has got a greater theme of brainwashing than anything. Global warming is just a theory and Buddhism, like any religion, has a set list of rules that one must conform to in order to reach Satori. And obviously the American army and Third Reich require you give up all of your civil liberties.

2) Do I agree with the message he is trying proclaim?

Yes. As artists it is our job to notice when ‘the man’ is bending us over and raping us. I would even be as bold as to recommend he attack the corporate executives more than he is. He says the “executives seem to slough it off as a social problem, not their moral problem,” but in the same way he isn’t really contributing to making the situation better. It’s like when I hear a shitty rap song blaring from some ignorant assholes ride… They rap about the problems in our modern society, but offer no remedy to these problems. Yeah, I know there is crack being made and bitches getting smacked in the streets, but how can we fix it? I’m not saying I know the answers, but art should address how we can also create better living conditions for ourselves and for others. Or maybe not. Maybe that’s the job of the guy with the microphone?

3) What do I like/dislike about the work?

I like the fact that he brought all of the different ideas together in one piece and how he showed them relating to one another. 54 zafu cushions (like good little soldiers) lined up in front of the swooshtika (Hitler/Nike corporation), yielding their attention. The colors and shapes are all well balanced. I think he could have given the cushions different patterns though. Some of them are the same, and it shows less various than there would really be if these cushions came to represent real people.

4) What other famous artists can I relate to this work?

As far as conceptual pieces go, I would have to say Andy Warhol. One of his main themes in all his work was how we tend to become so desensitized to acts of violence, racism, political propaganda, and pop culture icons by simply viewing them on our TV’s every day. We grow numb to them because they are common. And one of the main themes Scott Greiger uses in his work is how corporate logos and political symbols, typically everyday images, get lost in the background but continue to influence our perceptions on class, wealth, health, beauty, or anything else we use to help construct our residual self image.

5) Does this work have a positive or negative impact on you?

I would say it has a positive impact on me because I can steal his ideas and use them in my own work. I think most people would say it was negative and would thus ignore it. No one wants to face the truth. No ordinary consumer wants to condemn the products or ideas that make life easy, even if a child in Malaysia is making it for them in poor working conditions, or if the products are being tested on animals, or if people are being sent to the slaughter in other countries because of one man’s influence.

6) Has this work changed me?

I would like to say so. I should explore what meanings in my work could represent in other contexts. My compositions or color choices could closely correlate to other culture’s ideas and that would give my work more depth. I’m just too ignorant right now. You can only be so worldly at age 23. But writing about this work has influenced me to do some more research and brainstorming when I am creating a piece!

Kim Jones (a.k.a. Mudman) Q&A

1) What are my initial reactions to this artist?

First and foremost, I pity Kim. Mudman hasn’t had to experience the bloody reality of war and is able to express himself as he sees fit and he can cope with regular situations or act how he wants to. But that isn’t to say that he doesn’t carry a burden. Even though he interacts with the people that he’s near, he can’t fully divulge his ideas or beliefs, because the random civilians he encounters are primarily focused on the outer appearance and probably care little about his ego or philosophies. It just seems like a very lonely walk. My other initial reaction to Kim’s work is that it seems selfless and cold, yet composed. His work probably doesn’t pay money, especially considering most people don’t want to buy documentation of him walking 18 miles. He does it just to transcend the normality that we all experience day to day, and I think that it’s a brave gesture, or an ignorant one.

2) Could I ever do work like this?

I think I could. 150 lbs. on your back all day would make you exhausted. But at the same time maybe there is some kind of therapeutic quality that could surface. The strain of your muscles after hours of this could kick in the serotonin and one might not even feel pain. Or maybe afterwards you could get some sort of lethargic bliss from taking it off and you could sleep for days. I guess it also kind of depends on the audience. I’m sure he relies very heavily on the types of people that come up to him, whether they are in a bad mood or a good one.

3) Does this relate to any other work that I have seen in the past?

The book says Eva Hesse, Chris Burden and Bruce Nauman, which I can all see, but the first person I thought about was Robert Smithson and his ‘nonsites’. The mud on his body was what triggered it. By smearing it on his body, leaving the gallery space and intruding on the concrete sidewalks of the modern world, he is adequately representing not only his alter ego, but his connections with distinct places. As he alters himself into a more grotesque figure, he also comes to symbolize the deterioration of our culture. He is a walking entropy monument, unable to deal with harsh social climate we live in; war and violence ridden, ruled by the ‘mighty aggressors’.

4) Why is this work important to learn about?

One reason I guess it’s important is because in a way we can all relate to this idea of an alter ego. We all have ideas that we keep pent up inside us and most often we create or devise ways of expressing our inner turmoil by changing our identities. This allows us to become unafraid of conflict or deal with the stresses or anxiety that are placed upon us. For the most part, people who want to express the ideas of their inner self or alter ego put on nice suits or dresses or indie clothes (or whatever) or put their labrets in or get plastic surgery on their canines to make them look like vampires and they say shit they never would because they are different people in their ‘costumes’. Kim Jones put this stuff on because it illustrates his insides. Much like his art that was confined to the walls or spaces in his gallery, he too is confined and seeks to break out.

5) Is this work influential to me?

The transformation, not really, even though what I’m about to say is all bullshit. I’ve read Kafka and know all about metamorphosis. I’ve read Civilization and It’s Discontents. I feel happy with who and what I am. I don’t need to change my appearance to fit into some kind of ideal self.

As far as the living sculpture, I’m not really interested in it. It seems too much like fashion to me. I think he belongs on the runway.

6) Do I think he is a bad person for burning rats?

I’m sure he gets this kind of question in every interview he does. If he was burning live creatures as a performance piece, I would obviously stay and watch. And it’s not that I don’t care about rats either. If he was burning an endangered killer whale I wouldn’t intervene or walk out of the room either. It’s not my place to say, “Hey, don’t touch that fuckin’ killer whale!” Who am I to deny him an understanding of his own human nature or morals? I hate it when people interpret my work completely wrong out of ignorance and reprimand me for it. Plus, you can’t really blame him. He fought up in a place where that wasn’t considered abnormal probably. And during the 70s there was a destruction theme circulating in the art world. Chris Burden had just gotten shot, Yves Klein threw himself out a window 15 years previously, Acconci was eating himself, Abramovic was slicing her hands to shreds, Mendieta was portraying violent rape performances… the list goes on and on. I think that this piece is more impacting than Mudman.

Arnaldo Morales Q&A

1) What are my initial reactions to hearing about his work?

I never really thought about whether I like getting hurt randomly or not. I guess it depends on the context and the extent to which I feel pain. If I was by myself at some gallery crawl and some random fuckin’ piston punches me in the dick, I’m going to probably lash out. But if I was with my friends and this beaker spits acid out at me but I was able to dodge it, I would probably giggle. … So I guess I’m saying I think he is a sadist. He might think it is all about communication and creating ‘conversations’ but at the same time he is evoking suppressed fear and distress. However, at the same time I label him a sadist, I realize I too am a sadist (especially to get sexual gratification out of it). I enjoy being bitten and crushed and I definitely know how a near death experience can change your whole outlook on your life and your work. I guess I would just have to play with his shit in order to get it.

2) Is his work influential to me?

Yes. There is always work out there where the artist tries to get the audience to interact with their piece but it never works. Like Carl Andres’ 144 Lead Square at MoMa for instance. People don’t understand that it’s there and it’s on the floor and you can walk on it! Even Dr. Malena Bergmann (the best professor I ever had ever) said her intentions were for people to walk on her Requiem tubes, but nobody did it. Morales has found a way to create art that doesn’t resemble having the function of art. His work is transforming the gallery space into an amusement park. It’s a smart way of conveying your message to your audience by directly including them as part of the piece; I mean, his work is beautiful by itself, but without someone to prod or electrocute, it wouldn’t be as functional and would thus lose a lot of its meaning.

3) How would I describe his artwork?

If I was just a plain passerby outside of a gallery space, I probably wouldn’t describe them to a friend immediately as works of art. It’s to me more like a something an engineer or architect might put together. This type of work reminds me of my dad. He owns and operates his own mechanic shop on Sugar Creek in Charlotte. Some days, when it’s not busy because of rain or snow, he will just sit around sketching ideas in his mind, and taking old car parts and build little functional sculptures out of them, like whirligigs or wind chimes. I always find it fascinating when people from other fields of study incorporate their knowledge into making art. Like Frankenstein’s monster creation, or chemical engineers using acids and bases or chemical reactions to create beautiful murals, or using numbers (the Golden Ratio, Fibonacci sequences or math metal) to create baskets or draw perfect circles. I especially enjoy the science behind making art. I’m glad Morales is doing what he is doing. But I wouldn’t call him an artist initially. He is more of a mad scientist.

4) How do you think he develops his ideas?

There is obviously an abundance of images to borrow from everyday culture. Street sweepers, slingshots, military weaponry; science-fiction novels are loaded with futuristic ideas on how we will fight crime or build bridges; plastic surgery, obviously laser tag, electric chairs and tattoo parlors… the list goes on. He lives in a nation where violence is all around us and the media is giving us our daily injection of fear and hysteria. All he has to do is look outside of his window and watch people tear other people apart. Then all he has to do is build a machine that ups our dosage of fear and distress, or that can help us destroy ourselves that much quicker. There isn’t really much thought you have to put into it. How can I tap into the psyche to promote hostility and aggression? That’s all you really have to ask yourself.

5) What have I learned about his artist?

It’s really interesting to me how he plays on the anxiety of the audience to give his work meaning. At the same time it sounds to me like he isn’t necessarily trying to develop a communication between his work and the audience, or the audience and their ability to cope with hostility, but more he is trying to find meaning in his own work. I’m sure getting shot in the head sucks, but living to tell about it is close to a miracle, and I know I would feel gracious for what I was given (not blessed because I’m not very religious). And I don’t think there is any good way of saying what I mean, but his work seems like a way to understand the injustice he endured. I’m sure that if I was shot, then I would want to understand why I got to live, or want to get the shooter back or try to cope with it in some way. Maybe he is creating this work to try to understand the person who tried to murder him, or to justify their acts against him.

6) What ideas can I take from him to use in my own work?

My family is a bunch of packrats. We have so much shit just laying around our yard that people could probably pay me to take things to use in their pieces. I have never been to the junk yard because my house is sitting on one. But even though I live in one, I still feel the compulsion to go out and buy shiny, new materials to use in my work. I like how Morales takes his junk and makes it bling. He talked about polishing and removing scratches from all the machine parts he used, making them look like new. Maybe I just need to learn a little more about industrial cleaning methods, or get some Goo-Gone or something. In this last year, I have seen a lot of people make really astounding work from found objects. I just don’t think I have developed that talent yet of seeing the beauty in garbage. Seeing his work makes me a little more open minded when viewing found object pieces.

Charles Ray Q&A

1) What types of feelings does his work evoke in me?

If blandness was an emotion, I would feel that when I look at Ray’s work. Maybe it isn’t his work that I find bland but more the presentation in the shitty book. The first page and a half is just Weintraub talking about what an average guy Charles is. So as I’m reading on, I’ve already locked this normal, skinny white guy into my mind and he offers nothing of interest. Not a very interesting way of portraying our hero. Then I say, “It’s just a book,” and I only read the things he had to say. But I love the deceptiveness in his work and I appreciate a good practical joke.

2) Does this artist relate to any artist we have talked about thus far?

Like Morales, he is interested in changing the way the viewer perceives what they are looking at, just in a different way. Morales is trying to make the viewer cringe and duck for cover, all the while getter a deeper understanding of the relationship between themselves and their anxiety threshold. Ray is trying something similar. In his ink piece, he is using anxiety to heighten observation skills, and in his merry-go-round piece, he is consistently ruining the pleasurable experience of the audience who are participating, thus raising anxiety levels once again.

3) How would you describe his artwork?

It’s very well crafted. It’s very plain work but the thought processes that occur when looking at it are dynamic. But at the same time I think it’s a failure. The whole idea behind his work is that it is supposed to be the antithesis to the modern marketing strategy. Corporations advertise shit that’s in your face and you don’t forget it. They don’t want to give you a chance to look away from their cool neon green pants or shampoo that smells like mango chutney! … Charles wants you to basically do the opposite. He creates blasé work that people don’t understand or care to see, and then as they start to turn away, he springs his booby trap on them! I personally don’t think the average Joe is going to get it, and if he does, it won’t stick, because it wasn’t impacting in the first place. Isn’t that why Corporate America advertises the way they do? Because we react instantly to the products that pop as opposed to the ones that linger unnoticed over time?

4) What are some major themes exhibited in his work?

First one I noticed was Proportion vs. Perception in the fire truck piece and the fall ’91 piece. By changing the sizes and proportions of an object or idea, he sheds light on how we perceive or attach meaning to the things he has exaggerated. Idealism vs. Realism was the next one pronounced in the male mannequin piece. Realism tends to represent the way things really are as opposed to idealism, which tends to pursue high moral principles and holds onto a system of beliefs that proclaim how the world ought to be perceived. I feel a little stronger on this theme than I do the others because I believe very strongly in teaching/promoting concepts at their face value. I wasn’t raised to sugarcoat or bullshit my work or ideas. I once tried to put my work in a show in Statesville; one of my life-size nude paintings. It was a very tasteful nude, but they almost didn’t put it in because she was obviously very bare! They were hesitant at first because they didn’t want to upset the locals. But the fact of the matter is we are all born naked, we are all naked under our clothes, we see naked people all the time on the Discovery Channel, covers of magazines or in our parents porn collection. It’s not taboo anymore. Voyeurism is another big theme that I specifically appreciate, because I like to watch as well. I like to peep over fences or into people’s windows at night or hide on roof tops with binoculars. True story.

5) What is your favorite piece and why?

Obviously the Oh! Charlie piece. I’ve seen this piece several times in magazines and on the internet. This piece is all about making unlikely connections between two ideas, like a metaphor. He’s saying one thing but meaning another. One might initially perceive Charles as having a fruitful, active sex life but then the reality hits that he has no one to really have sex with other than himself. It appears inviting, but isn’t. It’s a party you’re not invited to. The only literal idea in the piece is the phrase that inspired it… “Go fuck yourself.” I like his work because I like Greiger’s work. He is exploring the relationships between what we say and what we mean; our experiences and how others perceive our experiences.

6) What do you think inspires him?

Good question, Joey!! I don’t know. I would think that he is trying to slow us down a bit. We live in a time where everything is so fast paced. “I have to be in class in 10 minutes!” or “I’ve got a meeting in 3 minutes but I need my cup of coffee!” or “I’ve got to bullshit my goddamn blog entries and have them finished by 5 fuckin’ P.M. on Friday!!” Moving at this momentum, we NEED corporations to give us their shpeel without ambiguity or sugarcoating. We need our advertisements to be in our face, telling us what to buy, on what day, at this price, because we just don’t have the time to figure it all out. He knows we have only a limited amount of time to look at his sculpture, because he knows I need to get a hotdog in my belly by two o’clock! Maybe he’s trying to get us to stop and have a genuine thought, grow a little, before we move on to the next activity.

Yukinori Yanagi Q&A

1) What is your initial reaction?

I responded really well to what was said in the opening paragraph: “He chose, instead, to enlist an animal as his equal, his artistic collaborator… Yanagi chose to create art with an ant, an insect that is normally considered neither beautiful, individuated, endearing, nor directly useful to human enterprise.” But it is indirectly useful to human (I saw a special on ants a few weeks ago). Ants can destroy our homes or they help aerate our soil and kill pesky critters. In many countries they are used as a source of food and medicine. The Chinese have used ants for hundreds of years to help them cultivate citrus fields for harvest later. Ants maintain more than we think.

Another thing I thought about was the Jains of ancient India, who are still around today. Jainism is a religion/philosophy that stresses the equality of all life in our world. It’s very strict when it comes to killing other creatures and they are hardcore vegans. Non-violence is of the upmost importance, especially if you want to reach Moksha, which is similar to Satori or Nirvana. I practiced Buddhism in high school, and since Jains and Buddhists have very similar ideals, I restricted my travel, constantly looked where I was walking, and I never stepped a foot in the grass for about a year and a half. Traditional Jains almost always carry a broom with them, so as they travel they can sweep away any insects or living organisms. Killing a creature would hurt their chances of reaching an understanding of the true nature of the soul. So all in all, Yanagi’s work hits home. I remember constantly keeping an eye on the ground. When I came home from school I would pay very close attention to the way the ants and other insects moved so I could step over them to enter my house. I still have many of the same beliefs that killing anything is wrong, and non-violence is the answer.

2) Why does he do this kind of work?

To reach perfection is the first thing that comes to mind. Ants construct and maintain a perfect environment… never deviating, always at equilibrium. Yanagi is showing us what Utopia is like to experience. I see it as kind of an ‘informal interview’. By following the ant he is recording its journey through it’s life; the boundaries that have defined him and gives clues to what will come in the future. ‘The ant’s work’ is a direct representation of Yanagi himself. I think we could all learn a lesson from our tiny ‘friends’ as well.

3) “…Ants and humans have missions. But an ant’s mission is predetermined.” Response?

Does knowing your purpose in life make you a more evolved creature? Sure ants can’t learn culture, appreciate cool winds on a hot summer day, or cook a flambé, but does that make their existence less profound than humans? Do we really need to try to find ourselves, or learn other languages, or achieve our life goals? Do we really need to exist at all?

4) Who does this remind me of?

As far as meditation goes, Oliver Herring comes to mind. He said that his work with the knitted Mylar was meditative, even though it was time consuming and hard on his body. Frankenthaler comes to mind as well. She almost didn’t do any of her work really. She would dye the canvas and move it around, so that it ‘painted itself.’ I feel like Yanagi is doing the same thing here. He isn’t really creating these lines. The ant is. His mass is moving the ant around, and he isn’t really letting the ant go anywhere it wants… he is confining it to the space he has created.

5) Has his work influenced me?

Yes. Before I read about his work, I knew that I could use anything and everything to inspire me to create works of art. But after reading this, it makes me feel like I didn’t really know that everything could really inspire me in the first place. Fuck this class is good… Epiphany after epiphany!

6) What are you going to do now that you have had so many epiphanies?

I’m going to rethink my life of course. Everything I have done up to this point feels so trivial. Some of my ideas are good, but I need to totally overhaul the way I perceive my own work and develop my ideas in the future.

In The Making

I am an artist, this is true. And like any individual who is passionate about creating artwork, I have asked myself these questions before – Why am I an artist? What is art’s function in society? The truth I have come to understand is that there are no real answers, or formulas for equating success rates or ways to determine whether or not your art with impact anyone at all. Linda Weintraub doesn’t even give any real answers to the questions in some of the articles I read. They were just long, drawn out commentary on what the artist was trying to accomplish and what the viewer/reader should feel. I felt like she was just pushing her thoughts onto me the entire time I was reading, and was very disheartened by it. I would even be as bold to say that she doesn’t act like she really gives a damn to explore these questions in the least (from what I have read).

This reading also made me feel like I had very little impact on the civilized culture around me, which is true, but nobody likes to be knocked off their high-horse.. On page 122, she goes on to say that sources of inspiration can be everything, can come from anywhere, yield artwork that can be made by anyone, anytime. And if it isn’t art in the first place, people can call it that and transcend their normal role in society to the level of the profound artist (When I first heard of the Duchampian concept of ‘pictorial nominalism’, I was blown away. I could use this idea to help channel my inner turmoil and angst in my artwork as well as gain a competitive edge in art school. I think now after this reading, that it is more of a weapon used by the irresponsible and unpassionate pseudo-artists to gain acclaim). I feel she is dumbing down the role of the artist. By saying that art comes from all places and is inspired by all things, you could likewise argue that it also comes from nowhere and is inspired by nothing (if you would like to argue this, please comment).

This reading is 110% rubbish. And I'm sorry if you found it compelling; I mean that's cool, but I just spotted too many issues with Linda Weintraub's philosophies on what art is all about and how it needs to be accomplished. I don't feel the need to 'understand all the essentials' behind making contemporary art. I enjoy being lost. I enjoy all the jargon. And I enjoy taking the long short-cuts home.